Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It amuses me that people who voted for Brexit are being told they should go and live in a dictatorship..


Let us remind ourselves that both the Brexit vote and Donald Trump being elected President of the USA are a result of Democracy.


For some, Democracy only works if the vote goes their way..


DulwichFox

This wasn't primarily about the working classes who've suffered under globalisation. Whilst this may be a part of the story, (there were lot's of different people voting Brexit / Trump, for lot's of different reasons of course), the bigger picture in both cases is one of older, relatively comfortable, white men, who feel things are worse today than they used to be. Brexit was trailing until they focussed relentlessly on immigration. Trumps campaign was laced with xenophobia and misogyny. The truth is that this wasn't 'anti establishment'. It was the result of a successful campaign by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, viscount Rothermere, many in the Conservative party and the ruling elite, over many years. It was a kick back against progressive social changes which have sought to erode some of the traditionally white, male Establishment privilege. We should see it for what it is - and it's far from a working class revolution.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This wasn't primarily about the working classes

> who've suffered under globalisation. Whilst this

> may be a part of the story, (there were lot's of

> different people voting Brexit / Trump, for lot's

> of different reasons of course), the bigger

> picture in both cases is one of older, relatively

> comfortable, white men, who feel things are worse

> today than they used to be. Brexit was trailing

> until they focussed relentlessly on immigration.

> Trumps campaign was laced with xenophobia and

> misogyny. The truth is that this wasn't 'anti

> establishment'. It was the result of a successful

> campaign by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, viscount

> Rothermere, many in the Conservative party and the

> ruling elite, over many years. It was a kick back

> against progressive social changes which have

> sought to erode some of the traditionally white,

> male Establishment privilege. We should see it for

> what it is - and it's far from a working class

> revolution.


Think thae sums it all up nicely. I'll be quoting many of your words. Thanks.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It amuses me that people who voted for Brexit are

> being told they should go and live in a

> dictatorship..

>

> Let us remind ourselves that both the Brexit vote

> and Donald Trump being elected President of the

> USA are a result of Democracy.

>

> For some, Democracy only works if the vote goes

> their way..

>



Er .....


It's somewhat more complex than that ....

One thing all parties, here and in the US, need somehow to address is voter apathy. I was astonished to see these figures this morning:


231,556,622 eligible US voters

46.9% didn't vote

25.6% voted for Clinton

25.5% voted for Trump

1.7% voted for Johnson


Really almost more worrying than the fact that a quarter of Americans voted for Trump is the fact that in a country which prides itself on its democracy, which has as strongly defined a notion of citizenship as any free nation in modern history, nearly half the electorate couldn't be arsed to vote.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This wasn't primarily about the working classes

> who've suffered under globalisation. Whilst this

> may be a part of the story, (there were lot's of

> different people voting Brexit / Trump, for lot's

> of different reasons of course), the bigger

> picture in both cases is one of older, relatively

> comfortable, white men, who feel things are worse

> today than they used to be. Brexit was trailing

> until they focussed relentlessly on immigration.

> Trumps campaign was laced with xenophobia and

> misogyny. The truth is that this wasn't 'anti

> establishment'. It was the result of a successful

> campaign by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, viscount

> Rothermere, many in the Conservative party and the

> ruling elite, over many years. It was a kick back

> against progressive social changes which have

> sought to erode some of the traditionally white,

> male Establishment privilege. We should see it for

> what it is - and it's far from a working class

> revolution.


I'm sorry rah but I couldn't disagree more. By making this alienating assumption, you are falling for the centre left mantra the likes of 'the guardian' love to hammer home with pride, with no solid foundation in reality. Older people of all races and social classes who have experienced life and it's realities, have tended to swing to the right in later life, that's always happened. Nothing new there.


The poorest communities of all races have suffered under institutionalised powers from above, nothing new there either. The difference is, manufacturing in the poorest regions has collapsed, and the centre left political parties who used to be the 'go to' destination for poorer communities, has for a number of reasons fallen apart. These people in these places have consistently been failed by the people who they and their parents and grandparents have naturally voted for over decades. The gulf left by the centre left and social democratic parties of the western world has given people like Trump and Farage a free for all on them. As an example, Clinton recently at a rally said she would come down hard on miners and those who produce coal. This is not going to win over a poor family who've lost their livelihood and life as they knew it, they will of course look elsewhere for answers, and did.


It's a sad reality that most on the centre left can't acknowledge the above and then look for answers to win these people back. They seem pre occupied trying to justify Trump et al via some 'wealthy white male' loss of power through globalisation. All the time they continue with this rhetoric, people like Trump will soak up disaffected post industrialised communities, the western world over.


Louisa.

The thing is that People did not bother to vote to stay because they thought Brexit could NEVER happen.

That is why Cameron called for the referendum.. He too believed it could never happen.. and why he had to stand down.

The people who voted for Brexit never thought it would happen.


In the states no one beleived Trump could EVER win. He was 150/1 (money to be made there) bet Trump backed himself .

Thats's how Millionaires become Billionaires


Foxy

There seems to be a confusion about how politics, discourse and democracy work. If Labour win an election for example, do conservatives supporters say "well that's sorted, end of discussion, let's dissolve the party"? It's exactly the same with Brexit. Whatever side you're on, you will continue to have a view, and in a democracy, you are free to express it. You should, if you believe it strongly, continue to try and persuade others of the strength of your arguements, I would say it's your duty to. This is not anti-democratic, it is the fundamental basis of free political debate and a central plank to a functioning democracy. Clearly democratic decisions should be accepted in the sense that must not be overturned by force, through coercion or by illegal means - but there are all sorts of other reasonable, peaceful, lawful and democratic routes for influencing and persuading others. The idea that you have two opposing ideas, that one 'wins' and then all further debate or discussion must be silenced, is ridiculous, anti-democratic and frankly childish.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > This wasn't primarily about the working classes

> > who've suffered under globalisation. Whilst

> this

> > may be a part of the story, (there were lot's

> of

> > different people voting Brexit / Trump, for

> lot's

> > of different reasons of course), the bigger

> > picture in both cases is one of older,

> relatively

> > comfortable, white men, who feel things are

> worse

> > today than they used to be. Brexit was trailing

> > until they focussed relentlessly on

> immigration.

> > Trumps campaign was laced with xenophobia and

> > misogyny. The truth is that this wasn't 'anti

> > establishment'. It was the result of a

> successful

> > campaign by the likes of Rupert Murdoch,

> viscount

> > Rothermere, many in the Conservative party and

> the

> > ruling elite, over many years. It was a kick

> back

> > against progressive social changes which have

> > sought to erode some of the traditionally

> white,

> > male Establishment privilege. We should see it

> for

> > what it is - and it's far from a working class

> > revolution.

>

> I'm sorry rah but I couldn't disagree more. By

> making this alienating assumption, you are falling

> for the centre left mantra the likes of 'the

> guardian' love to hammer home with pride, with no

> solid foundation in reality. Older people of all

> races and social classes who have experienced life

> and it's realities, have tended to swing to the

> right in later life, that's always happened.

> Nothing new there.

>

> The poorest communities of all races have suffered

> under institutionalised powers from above, nothing

> new there either. The difference is, manufacturing

> in the poorest regions has collapsed, and the

> centre left political parties who used to be the

> 'go to' destination for poorer communities, has

> for a number of reasons fallen apart. These people

> in these places have consistently been failed by

> the people who they and their parents and

> grandparents have naturally voted for over

> decades. The gulf left by the centre left and

> social democratic parties of the western world has

> given people like Trump and Farage a free for all

> on them. As an example, Clinton recently at a

> rally said she would come down hard on miners and

> those who produce coal. This is not going to win

> over a poor family who've lost their livelihood

> and life as they knew it, they will of course look

> elsewhere for answers, and did.

>

> It's a sad reality that most on the centre left

> can't acknowledge the above and then look for

> answers to win these people back. They seem pre

> occupied trying to justify Trump et al via some

> 'wealthy white male' loss of power through

> globalisation. All the time they continue with

> this rhetoric, people like Trump will soak up

> disaffected post industrialised communities, the

> western world over.

>

> Louisa.


Except the poorest voted for Clinton in the majority of cases and the richest for Trump. The data doesn't support the prevailing narrative. Whilst I agree that there are major issues with how globalisation has effected the poorest and in particular the young, look at who voted Brexit. It wasn't the under thirties. The problem with pretending that this was somehow an 'anti-elite' vote is that it ignores the fact that the most powerful and affluent people - the likes of Murdoch for example have been pushing a far right agenda which is anti immigrant, homophobic and misogynistic for too long. I'm not dismissing the real issues that have resulted from the loss of high paid, blue collar manufacturing jobs. But to say paint this as a working class revolution is simply wrong.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There seems to be a confusion about how politics,

> discourse and democracy work. If Labour win an

> election for example, do conservatives supporters

> say "well that's sorted, end of discussion, let's

> dissolve the party"? It's exactly the same with

> Brexit. Whatever side you're on, you will continue

> to have a view, and in a democracy, you are free

> to express it. You should, if you believe it

> strongly, continue to try and persuade others of

> the strength of your arguements, I would say it's

> your duty to. This is not anti-democratic, it is

> the fundamental basis of free political debate and

> a central plank to a functioning democracy.

> Clearly democratic decisions should be accepted in

> the sense that must not be overturned by force,

> through coercion or by illegal means - but there

> are all sorts of other reasonable, peaceful,

> lawful and democratic routes for influencing and

> persuading others. The idea that you have two

> opposing ideas, that one 'wins' and then all

> further debate or discussion must be silenced, is

> ridiculous, anti-democratic and frankly childish.



This would be very good but there is a huge tendency on the left to demonise those that don't agree with their orthodoxies - much of the left is deeply illiberal

... It's actually not so much a class issue at all. It is (in my opinion - and I believe the data bear this out) a kick back against what I would call social progress (those on the right, might claim it is 'political correctness'). This is not exclusively, but predominatly from older, white men.
Quids - I don't get your point. So you think there should be no debate of ideas because 'the left are illiberal'. There are people who will always try to demonise those who hold different positions to their own on any given issue. One might argue, you've just kind of done this yourself.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> One thing all parties, here and in the US, need

> somehow to address is voter apathy. I was

> astonished to see these figures this morning:

>

> 231,556,622 eligible US voters

> 46.9% didn't vote

> 25.6% voted for Clinton

> 25.5% voted for Trump

> 1.7% voted for Johnson

>

> Really almost more worrying than the fact that a

> quarter of Americans voted for Trump is the fact

> that in a country which prides itself on its

> democracy, which has as strongly defined a notion

> of citizenship as any free nation in modern

> history, nearly half the electorate couldn't be

> arsed to vote.


I'm not sure it's a case of voter apathy but that many voters couldn't bring themselves to vote for either candidate. I very nearly didn't vote in the last GE for the same reasons.

I think it is a mistake only to look at socio-economic classifications to determine voting patterns. What after all are such classifications an artefact of?


It seems unlikely, as with Brexit, that the binary trump-rejoice : trump-despair division is determined in that way (of course there are many factors certainly including decline of traditional industries but they affect only some voters and do not catch at the complexity).


I think one has to think about the reasons why there is an upsurge in populism more generally. What might one mean by this term? Not 'having a majority in an election'. And certainly not 'democracy' - which should only have one meaning in my view: Chantal Mouffe's state of open discursive (not physical) antagonism (or Ranciere's state of dissensus). That is, a recognition that none of us has the same interests and that it is good to have these expressed. Populism is the CLOSURE of this as an expression of collective will (thus the interests of the good - in Trump's case, those who are citizens - are all the same). (The establishment does a similar closure - which makes populism look superficially attractive - by, for example moving towards heteronomy with regard to potentially antagonistic institutions such as parliament, the judiciary). Populism as general-protest is fermented and reflected as legitimate by a commodified press, and resistance to it is greatly weakend by a commodified education system (and that process began decades ago). Populism can be expressed in an election but this does not make it democratic in this sense. Of course populism collapses what one might mean by democracy to populism as part of its closure.


Sometimes such closure is warranted. For example in cutting of the head of a tyrannical king, or in a protest against the commodification of the education system: one comes together to express outrage, and this must be on the basis of the same (i.e. the good of democracy is exchanged for the good of protest) until everyone goes home. Cromwell's mistake was to believe that he could express a general will in government rather than (quite rightly) in revolution (hence the settlement in the Glorious Revolution that the High Court referred to contra May).


There is a recognition of this in the regrexit phenomenon: the protest gives way to the return to the reality of antagonistic interests (these have to be expressed in the resulting negotiations! It is impossible for the expression of general will - brexit=brexit=brexit - to express the particulars that were given up in the populism). The real evil is when those who have the responsibility of government cannot see that it is wrong to try to implement that will, and take it on themselves to express it. Almost certainly Trump (not Putin) knows this - certainly, one prays so. (It is also of course the reason that May has for trying to keep negotiations secret, hoping to be able to suture the varied interests in a new expression of will after achieving agreement - but this is a mistake: parliament is there to be an expression of dissensus that works towards democratic rather than populist government).


As a cosmopolitan liberal I tend of course to pigeon-hole this particular populist protest (as with Brexit) as a phenomenon of ressentiment (economic, few opportunities for social inclusion etc). This must partly be the case I think - and the tragedy is that to the extent that either brexit or trump's promises are implemented they will disadvantage precisely those who were crying out in pain. It is dismaying when this ressentiment is expressed against ethnic groups or migrant workers.


But this is an expression of my personal socio-economic and cultural-education privilege I think and so a little particular. I wonder if we should think much more broadly and take Trump's strategy seriously (as a serious protest about something that appealed well beyond the economically disadvantaged). I find it difficult to express what that is. But it has something I think to do with the nature of subjectivity in a commodified world - that it cannot be properly expressed. Trump exposed a kind of suffocation that is implicit in heteronomous political correctness. It was expressed as claims of 'corruption' but I don't think that should be taken literally.


I realising I am struggling for coherence here.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No one's saying they are.

>

> What the issue is - with non acceptance of

> democracy - is trying to have the vote re-worked

> so it can alter the outcome. That is outside the

> democratic process.


If you want to stick to the letter of the democratic process, the referendum was totally non-binding on government and they could legally completely refuse to implement its demands if they wished. Even though I don't like the referendum result, I accept that would be wrong, given the undertakings given beforehand. However, allowing parliamentary scrutiny of any deal made by government is not outside the democratic process - allowing a small cabal of cabinet ministers to agree on a deal and force it through without due scrutiny from our elected representatives, that would be truly undemocratic.

An American black woman on the news said that she voted for Trump because Obama had failed to deliver on his promises to the black community in his 2 terms.

( 25-49 year olds in the UK -44% voted leave according to the YouGov exit polls, under 25s- 25% leave- big difference- nice graphs here http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-did-different-demographic-groups-vote-eu-referendum)

I agree with Louisa personally.

Don't forget the effects of poor education...the rhetoric may very well have gone over the heads of many people and they have voted according to what they have been experiencing in every day life (the well-off and educated did that too, purely out of self-interest, and then started to scream racism, xenophobia etc)

@ Louisa: I actually think the 'centre left' are absolutely pushing the same narrative which you seem to support - That this is about disaffected post industrial communities. That it's the 'uneducated working class' protesting against the establishment. It's a convenient story, but fundamentally wrong. Look at how people voted when broken down by income: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0


Look at Viscount Rothermere, Rupert Murdoch, the right wing of the Conservatives and those funding the Eurosceptic cause - look at Fox news and the Billionaire property magnate. I don't know who the 'elite' is if it's not these guys... apparently it's the 'middle class', or anyone who works in an office!??? I don't buy it at all. Plenty of very affluent people voted Brexit / Trump.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Except the poorest voted for Clinton in the

> majority of cases and the richest for Trump. The

> data doesn't support the prevailing narrative.

> Whilst I agree that there are major issues with

> how globalisation has effected the poorest and in

> particular the young, look at who voted Brexit. It

> wasn't the under thirties. The problem with

> pretending that this was somehow an 'anti-elite'

> vote is that it ignores the fact that the most

> powerful and affluent people - the likes of

> Murdoch for example have been pushing a far right

> agenda which is anti immigrant, homophobic and

> misogynistic for too long. I'm not dismissing the

> real issues that have resulted from the loss of

> high paid, blue collar manufacturing jobs. But to

> say paint this as a working class revolution is

> simply wrong.


Too simplistic again rah. The key to this election was the swing states, especially the 'rust belt'.


Those without a college degree in Pennsylvania, mostly white, earning less than $35,000 a year, voted for Trump over Clinton 2 to 1. The same happened in Ohio, and I'm sure this could be repeated across these northern states. These are the heartlands for the Democratic Party. These people swung this election, and something similar happened in the north of England in Labour heartlands during Brexit.


The situation elsewhere may have been statistically different and I'm sure you could throw those figures at me too, but crucially those figures are irrelevant outside of the all important swing states, particularly in the US Presidential election.


Louisa.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...